sb 234 question plz

Rick H said:

Yes you can but you must tell them that you are recording audio and video and they can NOT refuse you.

Kingfish said:

Cite please. I don't think FL is a 2 party state. GA for example is a one party state unless you are recording a minor in private without consent.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

From just looking around it looks like FL is a 2 party state except when there is no expectation of privacy (when there is a chance the conversation could be overheard.)

Anyone have any case law?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYGSv8dfbU0&feature=more_related

Click to expand...

I think running up on a police officer during his traffic stop is a big no no...doing it armed is even more of an ******* move. Not only is the cop nervous now, now he KNOWS you're armed and knows you have beef with him doing his job. I think this move makes us gun owners look like idiots and helps the lefties pass more restrictions on carry.

Just go about your normal day, and if you get harrassed for that then throw a fit.




a similar post on the youtube comments

This video is probably being circulated through every police department as a training aid for the officers. Legislatures would probably look at this video, and possibly start changing cc laws, or they may decide to add more to it because of this particulare situation. Everybody is allowed to assert their rights, but showing up to that traffic stop like that is not the best way to do it....

Click to expand...

I've seen nothing in Florida Statutes that would override the SCOTUS test regarding "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy."

I believe the Majority opinion also mentioned that a Cop in the commission of his/her official duties, never has a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy due to the public nature of the job. If you are dealing with the PUBLIC, your words and actions cannot possibly be expect PRIVACY.

Someone cite where I'm wrong if you can.

Citing the absence of something is difficult. But if I'm wrong, and I HATE being wrong, I'd like to know.

Please Cite where Florida has 2 Party Consent. If it cannot be found, it isn't true.

A quick google found this:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/man-arrested-for-videotaping-cops-in-florida

http://www.pixiq.com/article/charges-dropped-against-florida-students

O RLY?

So how is it illegal if the charges were dropped and the swi... er, "Officers" are in hot water?

Grab the cameras, destroy the evidence, fix it in the report. SOP.

2nd party states

Kingfish said:

From just looking around it looks like FL is a 2 party state except when there is no expectation of privacy (when there is a chance the conversation could be overheard.)

Anyone have any case law?

Click to expand...

You're in the state of FL, so it is illegal to record them without their consent. The following states require 2-party consent:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Massachusetts
Maryland
Michigan
Montana New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
Source(s):
Note: Companies are the exception. If they announce the call may be recorded and you continue, it is implied consent.

And I believe you can find the answers on this hyper link below.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0934/0934.html

ixtow said:

Please Cite where Florida has 2 Party Consent. If it cannot be fount, it isn't true.

Click to expand...

934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:
(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

...

(d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.


I have read there is an exception when there is no expectation of privacy but I can't find it.

I am agreeing with you except that FL IS a 2 party state (with exception)

Found the exception in the definition:


[SIZE=-1]934.02 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Definitions.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]—[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]As used in this chapter:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]“Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.[/SIZE]

Kingfish said:

Found the exception in the definition:

934.02

Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

(2) “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

Click to expand...

I've read this before but didn't have the FS number handy. It is the reason why I mentioned in another thread that when a Cop says "Come over here so we can talk privately, I don't want to embarrass you in front of..." It's a scam. He is EXHIBITING AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, but making it look like it is for your benefit.

The truth is, he wants to make what he's about to do/say inadmissible in court. No Honest Cop needs Privacy to do his job. When he's off the clock, fine, he's just like the rest of us. But when he is in uniform and performing his duties within the limits of his legal authority, he hasn't any reasonable expectation of privacy, nor would he need it.

When a term is defined by using the same term in the definition.... Uh, yeah. Illiteracy.

We'll need the case law in such murky water. I've already read it, but I'd like someone to cite it. When I cite things I get flamed. I also don't like being the Fact Welfare.

"No thanks, I'd rather remain where neither of us has a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy." Using the right words puts them on notice.

Video is actually less regulated, as it isn't Oral Communication.

In effect, it gives Dirty Cops an easy way to know when they can't get away with what they intended to do. Some say "Well, I just prevented him from doing dirty stuff because he knew I had the camera and he stopped, whew! Lucky me!" But is actually works to our disadvantage as the dirty cops never get caught doing their dirty deeds. They always clean up their act when they know about the camera. It means you get away from them, but what about the next guy? How long will that Cop keep getting away with it?

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/florida/florida-recording-law

INAL, but it seems to me if we proceed like other state OC'ers do, and just have a recorder going in our pocket we can be charged with a felony. Even if we ask the officer if we can record him, can't he arrest you for all the seconds you recorded his voice before you asked? I would really like to be wrong about this, it's so confusing.

Kingfish said:

Found the exception in the definition:


[SIZE=-1]934.02 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Definitions.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]—[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]As used in this chapter:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]“Oral communication”
means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

The question I want answered is a LEO encounter a private or public encounter. :question:

Mas49.56 said:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/florida/florida-recording-law

INAL, but it seems to me if we proceed like other state OC'ers do, and just have a recorder going in our pocket we can be charged with a felony. Even if we ask the officer if we can record him, can't he arrest you for all the seconds you recorded his voice before you asked? I would really like to be wrong about this, it's so confusing.

Click to expand...

This is from the very same link you just posted yourself.

Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard.

Click to expand...

Hence why you don't let them pull you aside. They would have to seize you without cause to force the matter.

Mas49.56 said:

The question I want answered is a LEO encounter a private or public encounter. :question:

Click to expand...

Aye, there is the crux of it. Good eye.

Generally, no. They can create it in the fashion which I mentioned above, don't let them.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=florida+recording+cops

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=florida+video+taping+cops

The outcomes of the false arrests on this topic should tell you all that you need to know.

They'll still arrest you and make your life hell any way they can. But the charges won't stick, and you will be out the money and hassles.

Just like a false OC arrest, you have to decide if you're going to fight it for the rest of us, or bend over and take it.

It's tough when you're one guy. that's why OCers have 'get togethers' in other states. Cops are far less likely to try rounding up 20 peoples' cameras and arresting all 20 of you.... They are not willing to push their luck so hard when you aren't alone.

Besides, you can just delete the audio and their actions are still incriminating. Cops are allowed to lie, so the words don't really matter. If they hold you there for 20 minutes, even with no audio, hey guess what, you were detained! There wouldn't even be a video if they hadn't! Handcuffed? Gun taken? None of these things need words. They are actions. Illegal actions.

And just to be certain that the horse is dead:

In Tarpon Springs back in Jan two college students were video taping the police making a drug bust when one of the cops approached them demanding that they turn over their camera and tape. They of course told the cop no, that they weren't going to do so. And were promptly arrested.

The Pineallas State Attorney has dismissed the charges, and according to what the reporter covering this story on the news just said here in Fl it is legal to tape both video and audio in a public place, if the camera is visible. It's only illegal to do so secretly, or to record phone conversations.

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-714470.html

I'm sure someone can scrounge up the actual SA statement. I linked two articles about this same incident earlier in the thread.

I'm sure even the guys who hate me to death would agree.

One things for sure if this OC law passes, the Florida forum here is going to get lively!:lol:

Look at the demographics. Of States that would have OC, what is the Population of FL compared to others? It's right behind California. And the Cops, far less respectful of We the People than even the Cops in CA.

It's gonna big huge. Battle Stations! Man the Legal Defense Funds! We're goin' in!

Here is the sub sect in the law

The 2010 Florida Statutes

934.09.
(d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given PRIOR consent to such interception.

And if they do NOT consent then I will take the 5th

Ya'll need to get used to Florida Laws....

In general, it's a Blanket ban on everything, everywhere, everyone, always. Then, they pepper in exceptions for the crap they can't actually ban. It's never organized or in one place, you have to keep reading.

Recording is Banned without prior consent; EXCEPT when said parties have no Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.

It isn't spelled out that simple, it never is. But it's in there. I've been reading the crap for nigh on 2 decades, so I'm accustomed to it. Part of why I hate Florida so much. They really have created a "Government gives you permission" legal system here, and it's a damn maze. As Citizens are victimized by it and fight back, the poke the holes and make the exceptions. In Florida, everything we take for granted was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears of some poor victimized citizen who came before us.

That's a major part of what I like about SB234/HR517. It was drafted with compliance in mind. That damn near never happens in this State. And as I predicted, they tried to shovel in amendments that would have required litigation to strike out.

This ain't Arizona or Virginia. You can find a law against damn near everything there is to do with yourself. But there are 15 exceptions to it scattered around in seemingly unrelated subsections based on how some Judge kicked it in the nuts. It's hard to find, but it's there.

I'm not going to talk about it anymore. My head is tired of hitting the wall.

No more Fact Welfare! See why I hate doing it?!?!

Regardless, Federal courts have repeatedly struck it down, and a Florida SA is now on record refusing to prosecute because it's just stupid.

Once again, the short answer is- we dont yet know. The final version has not been created yet, and we dont yet know what wording will be in the final package. Until we do, everything is speculation. Nothing more.
When the final bill comes out, if it is passed-THEN let's look it over and see.

Ask yourself this though-right or wrong- do you REALLY intend to rile up a cop over it?
Keeping in mind,you dont know what level of training or competence the officer in question has, nor do you know what/if any experiences he may have had previously that might make him a bit edgy when dealing with an armed subject?

Why inflame the situation and risk turning it into an "officer involved shooting" -the aftermath of which will no doubt paint you-as some wreckless/ gun-wielding lunatic that he was forced to put down- in the media. And, make all the rest of us look like idiots who they will then go out of their way to harass at every oppty.

We've got all these hot heads in here already declaring an intent to start the next revolution over being checked out. Its just a check. Keep the cool, make them as comfy as possible, be professional, and drive on.


"Seriously, I've had Cops SHOOT AT ME and I won't bend over that easily"

This guy again..:banghead: :banghead: This simply begs for the other half of the story. What on earth were you doing to create a situation that made cops feel the need to put lead into you? Or was this another assassination attempt by Dean's goon squads? :uhoh:
It's this attitude, and this shade-tree lawyer nonsense that I fear more than any LEO's having an issue with my .45 on my hip. The whackaloons that are going to provoke a negative outlook on all of us, and likely end up getting our bill repealed the next time the commies take over the legislature.

j4l said:

Once again, the short answer is- we dont yet know. The final version has not been created yet, and we dont yet know what wording will be in the final package. Until we do, everything is speculation. Nothing more.
When the final bill comes out, if it is passed-THEN let's look it over and see.

Ask yourself this though-right or wrong- do you REALLY intend to rile up a cop over it?
Keeping in mind,you dont know what level of training or competence the officer in question has, nor do you know what/if any experiences he may have had previously that might make him a bit edgy when dealing with an armed subject?

Why inflame the situation and risk turning it into an "officer involved shooting" -the aftermath of which will no doubt paint you-as some wreckless/ gun-wielding lunatic that he was forced to put down- in the media. And, make all the rest of us look like idiots who they will then go out of their way to harass at every oppty.

We've got all these hot heads in here already declaring an intent to start the next revolution over being checked out. Its just a check. Keep the cool, make them as comfy as possible, be professional, and drive on.


"Seriously, I've had Cops SHOOT AT ME and I won't bend over that easily"

This guy again..:banghead: :banghead: This simply begs for the other half of the story. What on earth were you doing to create a situation that made cops feel the need to put lead into you? Or was this another assassination attempt by Dean's goon squads? :uhoh:
It's this attitude, and this shade-tree lawyer nonsense that I fear more than any LEO's having an issue with my .45 on my hip. The whackaloons that are going to provoke a negative outlook on all of us, and likely end up getting our bill repealed the next time the commies take over the legislature.

Click to expand...

This is the main reason to stand our ground, it is the one main reason I am hopeful this law passes, it is because, it is our right just as carrying a firearm is our right. and it does NOT matter what they write in the the rules. We still do not have to have a tyranny government take away one right just to try and keep another. I believe all of our rights are important but our
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Is one I dont take lightly on losing, So to give up one right to get another is DUMB these are our rights and they will not be infringed upon. I know what you are going to say now but once we get them back they will never change them back. They will try but they will NOT succeed. and We the people need to quite sacrificing on these matters. So others feel more comfortable. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IT WAS BUILT ON THE GOD AND THE CONSTITUTION AND IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE IT GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR COUNTRY AND GO BACK TO YOUR BETTER COUNTRY IF IT WAS SO GOOD THERE. AND LEAVE OUR FREEDOMS ALONE PERIOD.

Rick H said:

This is the main reason to stand our ground, it is the one main reason I am hopeful this law passes, it is because, it is our right just as carrying a firearm is our right. and it does NOT matter what they write in the the rules. We still do not have to have a tyranny government take away one right just to try and keep another. I believe all of our rights are important but our
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Is one I dont take lightly on losing, So to give up one right to get another is DUMB these are our rights and they will not be infringed upon. I know what you are going to say now but once we get them back they will never change them back. They will try but they will NOT succeed. and We the people need to quite sacrificing on these matters. So others feel more comfortable. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IT WAS BUILT ON THE GOD AND THE CONSTITUTION AND IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE IT GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR COUNTRY AND GO BACK TO YOUR BETTER COUNTRY IF IT WAS SO GOOD THERE. AND LEAVE OUR FREEDOMS ALONE PERIOD.

Click to expand...

Some good points, and I dont disagree. However, by the same token, reality is this: You are armed, the cop is armed, the cop is recognized as an authority, we are not.
W/e the situation,if cop is checking one of us out-for whatever the reason (officer safety, public safety, a call by an alarmed citizen, whatever) is it in your or our best interest at that moment to make a scene-a potentially deadly scene, at that- and create a situation which u nor I will win anything by?

Or would it be more prudent to be calm and professional,comply within reason, to avoid escalating a possibly edgy-nervous (and dont forget, armed ) LEO to the point where he is inspired to open fire on you- (like with ixtow,for example :banghead ? Perhaps get the pertinent information (badge #, name, copy of any citations/etc. ) and make your case in a more appropriate setting. Say in a lawsuit, with a lawyer at your side- and make a case of it that way,if you are so inclined?
But let the provocation/escalation be on the officer-not u or us.

Getting into a 2nd/4th amendment rant (which would likely go right over some rookie cop's head, anyway) with the guy while you have a gun on your hip is just inviting a Darwin Award, I'm sure. And once your down, you can be pretty sure which way a Dept. will spin things-in court and in the media.

The street is not the place to pick a 2nd/4th Amendment debate. Pick your battles, and choose your battlefields, carefully. Doing so isnt "surrendering" or "selling out" it's just being prudent for your own good, and for that of the rest of us who just want to carry and be left alone.


As for constitutions and the like- take that up with the politicians ,in the only 3 places/ways they grasp- the pocket, the media,and the voting booth.
We're getting there, slowly but surely- the fact we are even discussing this possible bill at all, is proof of that. Little by little folks.